|Publication number||US7809589 B1|
|Application number||US 11/513,593|
|Publication date||Oct 5, 2010|
|Filing date||Aug 30, 2006|
|Priority date||Aug 30, 2006|
|Publication number||11513593, 513593, US 7809589 B1, US 7809589B1, US-B1-7809589, US7809589 B1, US7809589B1|
|Inventors||Alex Solis, Jeff Dennes, Carl G. Loyd|
|Original Assignee||United Services Automobile Association (Usaa)|
|Export Citation||BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan|
|Patent Citations (1), Non-Patent Citations (10), Referenced by (3), Classifications (4), Legal Events (3)|
|External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet|
This application is related to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/513,592, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/513,443, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/513,689, and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/513,595, all filed on even date herewith and also entitled “systems and methods for supporting extended pay date options on an insurance policy.”
One aspect of supplying insurance coverage in return for the payment of insurance policy premiums is the advantageous potential of staying ahead of the earned premium curve. In general, this refers to collecting payments for an insurance policy prior to incurring the risk associated with supplying the insurance coverage. For example, if an insurance policy is effective for sixth months, from July through December, then to stay ahead of the earned premium curve an insurance company might collect payments on the 20th of each month, starting in June and ending in November. Conversely, collecting payments on the 20th of each month, starting in July and ending in December, would place a company behind the earned premium curve, because risk would be carried each month prior to the customer's payment of the premium.
When a customer first purchases an insurance policy, he or she may be given a grace period prior to receiving the first bill. Thus, at the time of the first bill, the insurance company is behind the earned premium curve, and must generally find a way to subsequently shift its position to get ahead of the earned premium curve while still providing good customer service and not confusing the customer or otherwise giving the customer the impression that he is being overcharged.
To shift position and get ahead of the earned premium curve, insurance companies may conduct either a “short bill” or a “double bill” procedure during the first insurance policy coverage period. In a “short bill” approach, the number of payments during the coverage period are reduced, while the amount of such payments is increased. For example, on a six-month policy, the customer may be asked to make five larger payments, starting during the first month of the policy and ending in the second to last month, instead of six smaller payments (starting during the first month and ending in the last month). By the time the customer pays the last of the five payments, the insurance company has received full payment for the policy and is ahead of the curve. If the policy is renewed, the customer can be billed starting before the next coverage period, and can switch to a six payment billing arrangement.
In a “double bill” arrangement, the customer may be billed twice during one of the billing cycles. The customer thus pays, for example, six monthly payments on a six month policy, however during one of the months the customer is asked to make two of the six payments so that by the end of the policy, the insurance company is ahead of the earned premium curve. Once again, by the time the customer pays the last of the payments, the insurance company has received full payment for the policy and is ahead of the curve. If the policy is renewed, the customer can be billed starting before the next coverage period, and need not be doubled billed again.
Both of the above solutions are adequate, but come at the cost of possible misunderstandings with insurance company customers. Such misunderstandings present a cost in terms of lost customers and increased customer service costs. The need to double bill or short bill should thus be minimized to the extent possible.
Meanwhile, customers increasingly ask for and expect flexibility in terms of when a recurring payment will be withdrawn from a customer bank account. Many customers receive bi-weekly or monthly paychecks from work or other funding sources, and like to have automatic withdrawals made at a time when they can be sure there will be adequate funds in their account. However, it will be appreciated from the above that changing a date of automatic withdrawal is not as straightforward as it may seem. In addition to the need to stay ahead of an earned premium curve, automatic withdrawals from bank accounts are regulated and must be done in accordance with applicable rules and procedures. For example, the National Automated Clearing House Association (NACHA) presently provides a 10 day mandatory notice period. A variety of additional factors introduce complexity to the proposition of allowing customers flexibility in setting their own automatic withdrawal dates. For example, a large insurance company may prefer to spread withdrawals more or less evenly, rather than have a large number of withdrawals on a particular day of the month.
In consideration of the above problems in the industry, it is desirable to provide systems and methods for supporting extended pay date options on an insurance policy, allowing customers flexibility in selecting their own pay dates without violating automatic withdrawal notice requirements, falling behind an earned premium curve, or incurring a variety of other difficulties that may result from supplying customers with such flexibility.
In consideration of the above-identified shortcomings of the art, the present disclosure provides systems and methods for supporting extended pay date options on an insurance policy. In general, contemplated methods and apparatus may set a recurring automatic payment date for an insurance policy premium based on customer preference. In a internet-based implementation, a server may receive a customer-specified day of a month and/or a request for bimonthly withdrawals, such as may be entered via a user interface on an insurance company webpage. At least one insurance policy associated with the customer may be identified in one embodiment, all of the customer's insurance accounts may be identified whether auto insurance, home insurance, life insurance, or otherwise. The customer specified day(s) may be analyzed against data associated with the insurance policies to determine whether the day is disallowed. The day may be disallowed, for example, because it would result in falling behind an earned premium curve and thereby require a double bill or short bill to stay ahead of the earned premium curve. Alternatively, a day could be disallowed because it would require a notice period that is shorter than a mandatory notice period for notifying a customer of a pending withdrawal from a customer bank account, or could further be disallowed for any combination of reasons as set forth in detail herein. Additional advantages and features of the invention are described below.
The systems and methods for supporting extended pay date options on an insurance policy in accordance with the present disclosure are further described with reference to the accompanying drawings in which:
Certain specific details are set forth in the following description and figures to provide a thorough understanding of various embodiments of the invention. Certain well-known details often associated with computing and software technology are not set forth in the following disclosure, however, to avoid unnecessarily obscuring the various embodiments of the invention. Further, those of ordinary skill in the relevant art will understand that they can practice other embodiments of the invention without one or more of the details described below. Finally, while various methods are described with reference to steps and sequences in the following disclosure, the description as such is for providing a clear implementation of embodiments of the invention, and the steps and sequences of steps should not be taken as required to practice this invention.
In general, the below description begins with exemplary methods and user interfaces that may be implemented in accordance with embodiments of the invention. Thereafter, computer hardware, software, and networking components are described that may be used to implement such methods and user interfaces, or to provide system and computer readable media embodiments the invention.
The insurance company server and/or other electronics may next identify at least one insurance policy associated with said customer 102. The customer may have multiple insurance policies such as auto, home, property, life, and so forth. In one embodiment, the customer may select a particular policy for which he wishes to set a specific pay date. In another embodiment, the customer's selected pay date may be applied to all of the customer's policies with the subject insurance company. Applying a customer's selected pay date to more than one insurance policy requires additional computation of disallowed days for any additional policies, thereby adding complexity to such embodiments but also providing increased utility for the customer because the customer may set a single pay date for all of his insurance policies at once. Alternatively, in certain markets, customers may wish to stagger payments, in which case an ability to set pay dates on a policy-by-policy basis may be preferable.
Step 103 comprises determining whether the customer-selected day is a disallowed day for receiving recurring automatic payments. This step can involve a variety of computations as illustrated in
Exemplary steps provided in
If some of the specified days would require a short bill, then the logic of 301 may determine whether alternate days are available that are substantially the same as requested, but that would not require a short bill. Exemplary steps of such logic are similar to the steps 104 and 105 as illustrated in
Next, as in step 105, it can be determined whether the alternate days are substantially the same as requested. In one embodiment, this may be accomplished by comparing calculated alternate dates to a threshold level of acceptable difference between the customer-specified days and the alternate days. The threshold level may be determined and input into the system, for example by a technician in charge of the software. For example, it might be determined that it is generally acceptable to vary customer specified days for up to three bills by a maximum amount of 3 days. Anything beyond this amount of variation could be considered to require separate customer approval prior to settling on an agreed recurring automatic payment date.
Thus, in one embodiment, a step such as 301 may generate one of three outputs: allowed, allowed with certain suggested alternate dates that are substantially similar to the requested dates, and disallowed with certain suggested alternate dates that are not considered substantially similar to the requested dates. As stated above, in one embodiment the determination of whether the alternate dates are substantially similar can be made by comparing the suggested dates to a threshold level of acceptable difference.
The same approach may be applied, as necessary, to any of the other steps illustrated in
Step 303 determines whether specified days would require a notice period that is shorter than a mandatory notice period. Banking and electronic banking in particular is regulated by a variety of governmental and industry regulations that require notice to a bank account holder. For example, the National Automated Clearing House Association (NACHA) presently requires a mandatory notice period of 10 days prior to making an electronic withdrawal of funds from a bank account. The customer must thus be “billed” at least 10 days prior to the date of withdrawal, also referred to as a settlement date. The bill thus serves the purpose of notifying the customer of an upcoming electronic withdrawal from a bank account. It is contemplated that NACHA notice periods may change over time, and additional or different notice periods may supplement or take the place of the 10 day notice requirement. The invention is not limited to the NACHA notice period, and it should be appreciated that embodiments may account for additional requirements as they arise.
A determination in step 303 can be made by determining whether the customer specified day falls on any day that would require a notice period that is shorter than a mandatory notice period for notifying a customer of a pending withdrawal from a customer bank account. The term “bank account” should be distinguished from “credit card,” as the credit card industry is subject to different regulations than banking institutions. Similar to steps 301 and 302, alternate dates can be calculated and compared to a threshold to ultimately decide whether the customer specified day is allowed or disallowed, along with any suggested alternate dates in both the “allowed” and “disallowed” scenarios.
Step 304 determines whether specified day(s) result in an excessive total number of bank account withdrawals. A large insurance company may have tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of customers or members. This results in a large amount of withdrawals from customer bank accounts, and it can be expedient to spread such withdrawals out so that they are not all concentrated on a single day or small subset of days of the month (the term “month” should be considered as representative of recurring billing period, regardless of the applicable period).
In consideration of the desire to spread withdrawals out, a step such as 304 may be performed by determining whether specified days would require an excessive total number of bank account withdrawals on any of the days a recurring bill may fall by comparing the requested days against company wide data for the number of withdrawals on those days. Again, alternate dates can be calculated and compared to a threshold to ultimately decide whether the customer specified day is allowed or disallowed, along with any suggested alternate dates in both scenarios.
Step 305 determines whether the specified days would result in a violation of a grace period requirement. A grace period requirement is a period during which, by company policy or by externally mandated regulation, a customer may not be billed. Step 305 can compare the customer specified days against days that are considered disallowed due to falling within a grace period. Alternate dates can be calculated and compared to a threshold to ultimately decide whether the customer specified day is allowed or disallowed, along with any suggested alternate dates in both scenarios.
When performed in combination, in one embodiment the results from steps 301-305 may be passed from one step to the next, so that each step may operate intelligently based on the results of the previous steps. As suggested above, each step 301-305 may also be performed multiple times to account for multiple customer insurance policies. Alternatively, some pre-processing may be performed to allow steps 301-305 to account for multiple policies in a single pass. Embodiments that adjust payment dates for multiple insurance policies may account for differing effective dates of various insurance policies, as well as the other factors described above.
Step 106 may be preceded, if desired by a verification step in which the customer-specified withdrawal dates, as modified by any alternate dates that may occur at various times during the insurance policy, are displayed to the customer for verification and approval. In such an embodiment, the customer's automatic payments are updated only after verification by the customer.
Both a verification step and/or an update confirmation step may display pre-computed withdrawal dates to the customer 107, for example by transmitting a webpage including the pre-computed withdrawal dates to a client computing device. In one embodiment, all of the withdrawal dates for the duration of the insurance policy may be displayed. In another embodiment, the number of withdrawal dates may be limited, for example, to the total number of withdrawals that will occur during a one-year period.
In another embodiment, the pre-computed withdrawal dates displayed in 107 may be hyplerlinked to allow a customer to select individual dates for modification. For example, if the customer wanted to make withdrawals on the 23rd of each month, but one of the months was assigned an alternate date of the 21st, and the customer receives his paycheck on the 22nd, then the customer may want to see if other alternate dates are possible that month. A plurality of acceptable alternate dates may be transmitted to the customer, and the customer may submit a day change request that is received in step 108. The day change request may be routed back through the steps of the method in
A customer may be given the option to set his own multiple withdrawal dates, or may be constrained to preset dates, such as the 1st and 15th of the month. In either case, the customer request for multiple bank account withdrawals within a billing period is received at the server 201. As with
A bank account selection component 406 may thus accompany the various other elements of 400. The bank account selection component 406 may comprise, for example, selection buttons 407-409 for selecting from a plurality of customer bank accounts, or for selecting a new bank account, the requisite information for which may be entered via a bank account identification component 410.
A second information transmitted for display on said user interface 400 may comprise a customer date entry interface 402 for entry of a customer-specified day of a month for said recurring automatic withdrawals. In the illustrated embodiment, interface 402 comprises a selectable option to perform multiple bank account withdrawals within a billing period 404, and an option to select a specific settlement day 405 by entering a date into a component such as 403. Having entered information into the various fields of 400, the customer may select a button such as 411 which triggers transmission of the customer specified information from the client device to the server, such that the information is received at the server for further processing and optionally transmitting additional information to the client.
If it is determined that the customer specified day will be considered disallowed, then a user interface such as 500 may be transmitted to the customer. This user interface may, in one embodiment, have many of the same elements as
The user interface 600 is termed a “verification” page because it gives the customer an opportunity to verify the dates 602 prior to updating their actual withdrawal dates. The user may go back by selecting 604, or indicate acceptance of the dates 602 by selecting 411.
In one embodiment, each of said precomputed withdrawal dates are hyperlinked such that selection of a precomputed withdrawal date triggers transmitting fourth information such as the user interface of
Exemplary Network Environment
An exemplary networked computing environment is provided in
Distributed computing provides sharing of computer resources and services by exchange between computing devices and systems. These resources and services include the exchange of information, cache storage and disk storage for files. Distributed computing takes advantage of network connectivity, allowing clients to leverage their collective power to benefit the entire enterprise. In this regard, a variety of devices may have applications, objects or resources that may implicate the processes described herein.
This network 970 may itself comprise other computing entities that provide services to the system of
It can also be appreciated that an object, such as 975, may be hosted on another computing device 976. Thus, although the physical environment depicted may show the connected devices as computers, such illustration is merely exemplary and the physical environment may alternatively be depicted or described comprising various digital devices such as PDAs, televisions, MP3 players, etc., software objects such as interfaces, COM objects and the like.
There are a variety of systems, components, and network configurations that support distributed computing environments. For example, computing systems may be connected together by wired or wireless systems, by local networks or widely distributed networks. Currently, many networks are coupled to the Internet, which provides an infrastructure for widely distributed computing and encompasses many different networks. Any such infrastructures, whether coupled to the Internet or not, may be used in conjunction with the systems and methods provided.
A network infrastructure may enable a host of network topologies such as client/server, peer-to-peer, or hybrid architectures. The “client” is a member of a class or group that uses the services of another class or group to which it is not related. In computing, a client is a process, i.e., roughly a set of instructions or tasks, that requests a service provided by another program. The client process utilizes the requested service without having to “know” any working details about the other program or the service itself. In a client/server architecture, particularly a networked system, a client is usually a computer that accesses shared network resources provided by another computer, e.g., a server. In the example of
A server is typically, though not necessarily, a remote computer system accessible over a remote or local network, such as the Internet. The client process may be active in a first computer system, and the server process may be active in a second computer system, communicating with one another over a communications medium, thus providing distributed functionality and allowing multiple clients to take advantage of the information-gathering capabilities of the server. Any software objects may be distributed across multiple computing devices or objects.
Client(s) and server(s) communicate with one another utilizing the functionality provided by protocol layer(s). For example, HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is a common protocol that is used in conjunction with the World Wide Web (WWW), or “the Web.” Typically, a computer network address such as an Internet Protocol (IP) address or other reference such as a Universal Resource Locator (URL) can be used to identify the server or client computers to each other. The network address can be referred to as a URL address. Communication can be provided over a communications medium, e.g., client(s) and server(s) may be coupled to one another via TCP/IP connection(s) for high-capacity communication.
In addition to the specific implementations explicitly set forth herein, other aspects and implementations will be apparent to those skilled in the art from consideration of the specification disclosed herein. It is intended that the specification and illustrated implementations be considered as examples only, with a true scope and spirit of the following claims.
|Cited Patent||Filing date||Publication date||Applicant||Title|
|US20030101131 *||Oct 31, 2002||May 29, 2003||Warren Mary Carter||System and method for establishing or modifying an account with user selectable terms|
|1||"U.S. Appl. No. 11/513,443, Non Final Office Action mailed Oct. 8, 2009", 5 pgs.|
|2||"U.S. Appl. No. 11/513,592, Non Final Office Action mailed Oct. 7, 2009", 5 pgs.|
|3||"U.S. Appl. No. 11/513,595, Non Final Office Action mailed Jun. 10, 2009", 12 pgs.|
|4||"U.S. Appl. No. 11/513,689, Non Final Office Action mailed Jun. 10, 2009", 12 pgs.|
|5||American Family Insurance, "Billing FAQs-Automated Funds Transfer," http://www.amfam.com/billing/faq-aft.asp, downloaded Jun. 28, 2006, 3 pages.|
|6||American Family Insurance, "Billing FAQs—Automated Funds Transfer," http://www.amfam.com/billing/faq—aft.asp, downloaded Jun. 28, 2006, 3 pages.|
|7||Geico, "EBilling," https://mypolicy.geico.com/phsapp/fileviewer.do?file=documents.faq#whatiseb, downloaded Jul. 27, 2006, 1 page.|
|8||Geico, "Policyholder Service Center," https://mypolicy.geico.com/phsapp/rpppinfo.do, downloaded Jul. 27, 2006, 2 pages.|
|9||Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, MetLife, "eService FAQs: Billing," http://www.metlife.com/Applications/Corporate/WPS/CDA/PageGenerator/0,4132,P4185,00.html, downloaded Jul. 28, 2006, 3 pages.|
|10||*||Vaughan, Emmett J. & Vaughan, Therese. Fundamentals of Risk & Insurance: Ninth Edition. John Wiley & Sons. 2003. pp. 222-224.|
|Citing Patent||Filing date||Publication date||Applicant||Title|
|US8145564||Sep 27, 2010||Mar 27, 2012||United Services Automobile Association (Usaa)||Systems and methods for supporting extended pay date options on an insurance policy|
|US8301470 *||Apr 13, 2010||Oct 30, 2012||American United Life Insurance Company||Method and computer-readable medium for administering an insurance policy premium payment deferral plan|
|US8346579||Feb 23, 2012||Jan 1, 2013||United Services Automobile Association||Systems and methods for supporting extended pay date options on an insurance policy|
|Nov 3, 2006||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION (USAA), TEX
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:SOLIS, ALEX;DENNES, JEFF;LOYD, CARL G.;REEL/FRAME:018481/0173
Effective date: 20060828
|Dec 7, 2010||CC||Certificate of correction|
|Apr 7, 2014||FPAY||Fee payment|
Year of fee payment: 4